Two studies are reported describing the development of a short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) for use in circumstances where the full-form is inappropriate. Using item-remainder correlations, the most highly correlated anxiety-present and anxiety-absent items were combined, and correlated with scores obtained using the full-form of the STAI. Correlation coefficients greater than .90 were obtained using four and six items from the STAI. Acceptable reliability and validity were obtained using six items. The use of this six-item short-form produced scores similar to those obtained using the full-form. This was so for several groups of subjects manifesting a range of anxiety levels. This short-form of the STAI is therefore sensitive to fluctuations in state anxiety. When compared with the full-form of the STAI, the six-item version offers a briefer and just as acceptable scale for subjects while maintaining results that are comparable to those obtained using the full-form of the STAI.The Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) is one of the most frequently used measures of anxiety in applied psychology research. It is a reliable and sensitive measure of anxiety. Its popularity has meant that researchers are able to compare their results with those of others, a useful but rare occurrence in such research. The one drawback, however, with the STAI is its length, being 40 items long. This is a barrier to its use in studies where time for completing questionnaires is limited. It is also a barrier for some populations who are unable or unprepared to complete lengthy scales with seemingly repetitive items. These problems could be largely overcome by the development of a standardized short-form of the STAI.The STAI consists of two questionnaires of 20 items each. The first questionnaire measures state anxiety (how one feels at the moment), the second, trait anxiety (how one generally feels). There are two STAI questionnaires: one produced in 1970

No abstract

Health Technology Assessment is indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica/ EMBASE. Copies of the Executive Summaries are available from the NCCHTA web site (see overleaf). NHS R&D HTA Programme T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Screening Panel and funded as project number 94/27/03. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

Background Living with a child with a long-term condition can result in challenges above usual parenting because of illnessspecific demands. A critical evaluation of research exploring parents' experiences of living with a child with a long-term condition is timely because international health policy advocates that patients with long-term conditions become active collaborators in care decisions.

Objectives  There is increasing emphasis on encouraging more active involvement of patients in medical education. This is based on the recognition of patients as ‘experts’ in their own medical conditions and may help to enhance student experiences of real‐world medicine. This systematic review provides a summary of evidence for the role and effectiveness of real patient involvement in medical education. Methods  MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts and CINAHL were searched from the start of the databases to July 2007. Three key journals and reference lists of existing reviews were also searched. Articles published in English and reporting primary empirical research on the involvement of real patients in medical education were included. The synthesis of findings is integrated by narrative structured in such a way to address the research questions. Results  A total of 47 articles were included in the review. The majority of studies reported patients in the role of teachers only; others described patient involvement in assessment or curriculum development or in combined roles. Patient involvement was recommended in order to bring the patient voice into education. There were several examples of how to recruit and train patients to perform an educational role. The effectiveness of patient involvement was measured by evaluation studies and reported improvements in skills. Conclusions  There was limited evidence of the long‐term effectiveness of patient involvement and issues of ethics, psychological impact and influence on education policy were poorly explored. Future studies should address these issues and should explore the practicalities of sustaining such educational programmes within medical schools.